[2016] KEELRC 973 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear and valid grounds for a stay of execution. The respondent's application lacked clarity regarding the intended course of action, as he simultaneously referenced both review and appeal without substantiating either. No notice of appeal was filed, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 973 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Violet Vugutsa Odenyi; Respondent: Manoj Chudasama
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 659 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Review or Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant; interim orders vacated
- Judges
- L Ndolo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Review of Award, Appeal Intention, Threshold for Stay, Costs Award
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Violet Vugutsa Odenyi
Claimant
Manoj Chudasama
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Review or Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has established valid grounds for a stay of execution of the award pending review or appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent's application meets the threshold for granting a stay under Rule 32 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear and valid grounds for a stay of execution. The respondent's application lacked clarity regarding the intended course of action, as he simultaneously referenced both review and appeal without substantiating either. No notice of appeal was filed, and the grounds for review did not meet the threshold required by Rule 32 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules. Consequently, the application for stay was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the claimant. The interim orders previously granted were vacated.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant; interim orders vacated
Orders
- The respondent's application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
- The interim orders granted on 26th April 2016 are hereby vacated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO 659 OF 2014
VIOLET VUGUTSA ODENYI.......................................CLAIMANT
VS
MANOJ CHUDASAMA........................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 15th April 2016 I delivered an award in the sum of Kshs. 329,627 in favour of the Claimant.The Respondent then moved the Court by Notice of Motion under certificate of urgency dated 25th April 2016. The application which is supported by the Respondent's affidavit seeks the following orders:
That a stay of execution be granted pending review of the award;
That a stay of execution be granted pending the hearing of an intended appeal.
2. In the supporting affidavit sworn by the Respondent on 26th April 2016 he depones that he intends to appeal the award of the Court. He also intends to seek a review of the said award.
3. In a replying affidavit sworn by the Claimant on 13th May 2016, she states that the Respondent's application is misconceived and vexatious. She adds that no good reasons have been advanced for granting stay of execution of the award entered in her favour.
4. By nature and definition a stay of execution is an interim measure aimed at allowing an aggrieved party the opportunity to pursue a substantive cause of action through either an application for review before the trial court or an appeal to a higher court.
5. A party seeking stay must therefore lay before the Court valid grounds for such an order. In his application the Respondent is not clear what course of action he intends to take. In the same breath he states that he wishes to pursue a review and an appeal. He even states that he would like time to consult his Advocate.
6. It seems to me that all the Respondent wants is a stay of execution without clarity on the next course of action. At any rate, I have not seen a notice of appeal and the grounds set out in the memorandum for review do not meet the threshold set out under Rule 32 of the Rules of this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons I find the Respondent's application to be without merit and proceed to dismiss it with costs to the Claimant. The interim orders granted on 26th April 2016 are hereby vacated.
8. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016
LINNET NDOLO
JUDGE
Appearance:
Mr. Khalwale for the Claimant
Mr. Osoro for the Respondent